Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tonio 03-26-07, 06:16 PM	Why, apart from roleplaying reasons, why anybody ever pick daggers as their main weapon? Or even offhand? Easy to conceal? Would that be the only reason? I ask simply because I've always wanted to make a dual dagger wielding rogue, but always end up picking shortswords or rapiers in order to deal more damage. (Wrong forum for this?)
Crystalforged 03-26-07, 06:29 PM	Well, if you're limited to simple weapons and you want something to use with weapon finess then the dagger is an excelent choice. Another plus is that it can act as both a melee and a ranged weapon so you don't have to enchant two different weapons or switch weapons. However other than that if you aren't interested in weapon finess or you have acess to melee weapons then there isn't really a mechanical reason to have a dagger as a primary weapon. On the other hand its my opinion that every adventurer, no matter what level, should have at least one dagger in his possession. It does both piercing and slashing damage, can be thrown in a pinch, are easy to conceal, don't attract attention the way carrying around a greatsword will, and are light weapons making them perfect for cutting your way out if you ever get swallowed whole.
Tonio 03-26-07, 06:38 PM	Oh I fully agree with the "carrying a dagger at all times". That's why I mentioned picking it as your primary weapon. I can see the weapon finesse bit... but why would someone who's planning on investing on melee attack feats pick a class that only gives me access to simple weapons? Picking it for versatility (can be thrown as well as wielded, just one weapon to enchant) seems to me as more trouble than it's worth. Once you throw it, you lost it, so it'd only work for a single attack. Also, any added damage you gain is offset by the damage you lose by not wielding a different weapon. Seems to me you'd do more damage after more than 2 rounds by wielding a, say, shortsword, then switching to a bow if you need range. Basically, it seems the advantages in combat are slight or situational.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 03-26-07, 06:42 PM	Basically, it seems the advantages in combat are slight or situational. That's because it's a simple weapon. They are suppposed to be suboptimal choices.
trapspringer 03-26-07, 06:43 PM	It's broken for a simple weapon, and workable as a martial weapon. Here's why. 1. Two damage types- Good for bad guys with damage reduction negated by either slash or pierce, instead of just slash or just pierce. 2. Can be thrown- You're always ready to fight up close when holding your ranged weapon, and you can always make an attack against that dude standin' out there beyond your reach. 3. Special ability- +2 to slight of hand checks. Compare that to, say, a short sword. You drop from a d6 to a d4 in exchange for two damage types, range, and a special modifier. On the flip side, goin' from a long sword to a scimitar nets you a slightly improved crit range. Meh.
The_Basilisk 03-26-07, 06:43 PM	What about Kukri? they have an 18-20 crit range. Also, look at the Invisible Blade PrC, I think it's in Complete Warrior. It progresses in sneak attack (though only with daggers, kukris and punching daggers) and eventaully learns to feint as a free action (!!!) bluff, deny them thier dex bonus, then flail away with 2 daggers sneak attacking your heart out. And its only a 5 level PrC!
Totentanz 03-26-07, 06:52 PM	Daggers are great if you own ToB. Swordsage with shadowblade to Bloodclaw Master. Dex and Str to damage, no -2 for TWF, and full Str damage to off-hand. More generally, I agree with the notion that two damage types in a weapon that can also be thrown is superior to an extra 1 damage on average. Having to pull out your measly +1 spear to do piercing because the bugger you are trying to kill has DR 15/ Piercing (happened to me the other night) really, really sucks.
Tonio 03-26-07, 07:06 PM	That's because it's a simple weapon. They are suppposed to be suboptimal choices. Agreed, but it's sad, since it's the traditional weapon for a rogue. :( It's broken for a simple weapon, and workable as a martial weapon. Here's why. 1. Two damage types- Good for bad guys with damage reduction negated by either slash or pierce, instead of just slash or just pierce. I still believe the damage is too low for this to be a serious advantage, unless we're talking about an opponent with humongous damage reduction. Given how rare these opponents are, picking a weapon with substantially inferior damage doesn't seem like a good idea. 2. Can be thrown- You're always ready to fight up close when holding your ranged weapon, and you can always make an attack against that dude standin' out there beyond your reach. Again, only one attack. If you're planning to spend more than one round attacking that dude, you'd be better off switching to a bow. 3. Special ability- +2 to slight of hand checks. This is a noncombat advantage. Compare that to, say, a short sword. You drop from a d6 to a d4 in exchange for two damage types, range, and a special modifier. Regarding the damage... the shortsword does 50% more damage than the dagger. Granted, that number is reduced, possibly substantially, for a character with high strength, but then he'd probably want a two-hander, to make better use of his high strength. The number is, again, reduced for rogues making sneak attacks, and given a sufficiently high level, the initial weapon damage is practically irrelevant (who cares whether the weapon does 1d4 or 1d8, when you're adding an extra 5d6?). But still, when starting out, the extra damage is far from negligible, and in these times you're unlikely to find opponents with high damage reduction negated by either pierce or slash. On the flip side, goin' from a long sword to a scimitar nets you a slightly improved crit range. Meh. Well, scimitars do 25% less damage, but crit 50% as often. So with decent strength, a scimitar will do more damage over time. The difference is even greater if you pick improved critical, or get a keen scimitar. Barring those, though, the difference isn't that much. What about Kukri? they have an 18-20 crit range. Also, look at the Invisible Blade PrC, I think it's in Complete Warrior. It progresses in sneak attack (though only with daggers, kukris and punching daggers) and eventaully learns to feint as a free action (!!!) bluff, deny them thier dex bonus, then flail away with 2 daggers sneak attacking your heart out. And its only a 5 level PrC! Kukri are slightly better, true, but I still like daggers, conceptually, better. Which is why I'm trying to be convinced. :) The Invisible Blade does seem to be the solution to my dilemma, but I dislike being boxed into a single PrC to solve it. Plus, and this is probably my biggest problem, my DM current runs a 3.0 campaign. =/
Tonio 03-26-07, 07:13 PM	Daggers are great if you own ToB. Swordsage with shadowblade to Bloodclaw Master. Dex and Str to damage, no -2 for TWF, and full Str damage to off-hand. I'm happy to hear that. I look forward to upgrading to 3.5 soon, hopefully including the Tome of Battle. :) More generally, I agree with the notion that two damage types in a weapon that can also be thrown is superior to an extra 1 damage on average. Having to pull out your measly +1 spear to do piercing because the bugger you are trying to kill has DR 15/ Piercing (happened to me the other night) really, really sucks. Morningstar?
Voran 03-26-07, 07:34 PM	Have to admit that daggers, per stats, are kinda rp-oriented weapons. I suppose one way to help boost its value would be to have situations where normal weapons need to be confiscated or peace-knotted, yet local law allows you to carry dagger/knives freely. In some ways I've felt a dagger deserved a bigger crit range too. If you manage to get that close in to shove a dagger in someone, it should hurt.
Garble Willowwits 03-26-07, 07:35 PM	Well, the character I'm designing for a pending campaign carries a bandolier of five daggers across his chest. Granted, his main weapon is a punching dagger, but he has a fear of being caught "out of tricks" and 5 daggers within easy reach helps him sleep a bit easier. As people have said, they're a mechanically weak weapon, and it's unfortunate you can't add a "Flavor Bonus" to damage. You have to remember though whether it's melee or thrown, you add your strength bonus to a dagger attack. Finess isn't bad either for a rogue.
Delfedd 03-26-07, 07:47 PM	Because barbarians with 26 strength charging you with a dagger is hillariously frightening. Seriously. I think the damage on that guy is like 1d4+10. Many deities use it as their favored weapon.
Tonio 03-26-07, 07:52 PM	Because barbarians with 26 strength charging you with a dagger is hillariously frightening. Seriously. I think the damage on that guy is like 1d4+10. Many deities use it as their favored weapon. Well, for 26 str alone it'd be 1d4+8, compared to 1d12+12 if he wields a greataxe.
feartheinvinceblehamster 03-26-07, 08:39 PM	You can throw them.
trapspringer 03-26-07, 10:28 PM	+2 slight of hand is not non-combat bonus. Palming daggers is a must for a rogue since the release of complete warrior (palm now for sneak attack on round three). Two damage types is really valuable. It reduces the number of weapons you need to maintain up to your level with magic and what not.
Kadrimdorian_Mage 03-26-07, 11:12 PM	The trick to daggers is not getting two and makeing them amazing, it's getting 10-20 in a belt (Think "V for Vendetta") and keeping an enchanted one in one hand that you never throw. Even failing that, a dagger is a psycological element kind of like a hitchhiker's towel (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams). Pulling a dagger at the right moment can turn the tide of a battle, work wonders with a failing bluff or intimidate check, or free your friend trapped and bound over a pit of molten lava, or any other bad position for that matter.
leif008 03-27-07, 12:58 AM	There's also barbed daggers from CAdv, +2 to damage to sneak attack if you have 5 ranks in sleight of hand. It's exotic, but if you're playing the weapon group system (like I am) then you don't need a feat to use it. It can't be thrown and can no longer inflict slashing damage, but +2 damage that can be multiplied on a crit is a significant advantage. I've always felt that a character who can wreaks havoc with two puny daggers always seems so much more bada$$ than a rogue wielding shortswords.
DarkRhystar 03-27-07, 01:08 AM	What about Kukri? they have an 18-20 crit range. Also, look at the Invisible Blade PrC, I think it's in Complete Warrior. It progresses in sneak attack (though only with daggers, kukris and punching daggers) and eventaully learns to feint as a free action (!!!) bluff, deny them thier dex bonus, then flail away with 2 daggers sneak attacking your heart out. And its only a 5 level PrC! The Invisible Blade (Complete Warrior) may indeed feint as a free action, however this may only be done once per round (as per CW errata). As a side note, is it me or is the fact that people are getting hung up on the difference between a d4 and a d6 really really silly? Really, it's an average difference in damage of 1 point. A single point. Your level 9 Rogue swings a hearty +5d6 in Sneak Attack damage on every attack, does it really matter to him if he's dealing 1d4+5d6+X or 1d6+5d6+X anymore? Not really. As you gain levels, unless your weapon is increasing in size along the way, the weapon's base damage is pretty meaningless. When the potential difference in damage is a 60 versus a 64, the matter is pretty tiny. Trapspring made a decent point. The dagger has a lot of advantages that are still advantages at high levels. When the short sword's base damage no longer matters, the dagger's ability to switch damage types and be thrown probably still will.
Delfedd 03-27-07, 06:27 AM	Well, for 26 str alone it'd be 1d4+8, compared to 1d12+12 if he wields a greataxe. Oh, right. I forgot... The +2 daggers.
Zoycitenega 03-27-07, 10:55 AM	As a sorcerer who does a lot of melee combatI love daggers for the spell Daggerspell Stance. It's a second level spell that lets you get +2 insight bonus on attack and damage rolls, and more smaller benifits if you fight defensively. There's also the prestige class daggerspell mage, which requires daggers.
kelvinaw273 03-27-07, 11:10 AM	As pointed out above, if you are using a rogue then after a few levels the difference in damage from using dagger in a sneak attack is prortionally tiny, so it's not bad from that point of view. At low level, gettin gdaggers of different materials is cheaper than for other weapons by far.
BW0222 03-27-07, 12:13 PM	Tonio, Dagger is the best backup weapon in the game. Everyone should carry a dagger. Easy to conceal? Would that be the only reason? Hardly. 1. Light. Can be used in a grapple, can apply finese, useful for off hand fo TWF, etc. 2. Can be thrown. If someone is running away, it casting a spell and you can't reach them, etc. you can always throw it. With quick draw it is an excellent weapon for rapid shot and as a light thrown weapon, combining it this with TWF. 3. Both a thrown and melee weapon. You threaten with it but can still throw it. 4. Does either piecing or slashing damage. 5. Not typically restricted. You can carry it into most bars, cities, often meetings, etc. without gaining undo attention or having it confiscated in certain situations. 6. Does not draw undo attention nor show your class. If you are in leather armor and you have a long sword and short sword, you are likely a ranger. If you have a great axe, barbarian or fighter. If you have a scimitar, likely a druid. If you have a mace... cleric. Rapier... rogue. Staff... a wizard. With a dagger, you could be anything. Wielding one can easy make it hard for opponents to know what your are, to treat you as less of a threat, or target you with specific spells/tactics against your likely weaknesses. 6. Useful as a tool. From skinning a rabbit, cutting ropes, prying gems out of a statue, making a crude spear, etc. 7. Easy to find. Not hard to find a dagger, even in the smallest farm house. 8. Cheap. 9. Light weight. You can carry several. You can put it carry them in unusual spots - boots, hold one in your mouth when climbing or swimming, etc. 10. Special materials. It is both cheaper to get a dagger make of alchemical silver, cold iron, adamandine, etc. can less weight to carry several around as backup weapons incase you run into a werewolf, insane fey, etc. Arrows might be slightly cheaper, but they are consumed. Other weapons might do more damage, but cost and weight a lot just for those extremely rare encounters. I ask simply because I've always wanted to make a dual dagger wielding rogue, but always end up picking shortswords or rapiers in order to deal more damage. Damage is extremely relative. Rogues are generally pretty weak in combats against opponents of their APLs. A 5th-level rogue is never relying on weapon damage when facing an ogre. With a +1 strength bonus, 4.5 (short sword) vs. 3.5 (dagger) is 25% more damage, but... you aren't relying on spending six rounds toe to toe with an ogre. A rogues only main tactic in combat is sneak attack. As soon as you factor this into attacks, that is 15 (shortsword) vs. 14 (dagger) or 5% more damage. This is much less of an issue. When you then factor in the reduced change of getting a sneak attack because say you were 20' away turning your surprise round and couldn't throw a short sword... it isn't hard to see that the number of rounds necessary to make you the 11.5 hit points from not getting a sneak attack in would equal several rounds of normal combat to even out. (Wrong forum for this?) Equipment might have been better?
Edymnion 03-27-07, 12:20 PM	Yes, the average damage per hit between a dagger and a shortsword is only one lousy point, and the dagger is already the most mechanically powerful simple weapon in the game. And lets not forget the Master Thrower PrC either.
The_Basilisk 03-27-07, 12:51 PM	The Invisible Blade (Complete Warrior) may indeed feint as a free action, however this may only be done once per round (as per CW errata). Yes, but if you feint an opponent, he's flat-footed until his next turn, so you can make a full attack against that opponent and sneak attack with every attack. (Which is different than sneak attacking from hiding, you only get SA on your first attack then)
Stormbrand 03-27-07, 02:25 PM	First of all, let me point out that having personally fought with daggers, they are not at all easy to conceal. Back to game. The versitality of daggers is a huge advantage when you think about it - your main weapon will be the one all your feats, special abilities and enchantments go into. These you can rely on far more often and in far more situations. Effectively, you are fighting at full strength when everyone else is accepting a disadvantage.
Rhuxley 03-27-07, 03:07 PM	First of all, let me point out that having personally fought with daggers, they are not at all easy to conceal. Umm if you read in the Arms & Equipment Guide it says an equivelent of daggers is a sken dubh(cant spell my own words), and those are like 2 inch blades. If a dagger is only 2 or 3 inches, it would be pretty easy to conceal.
Ash the blackcowl 03-27-07, 03:09 PM	That's because it's a simple weapon. They are suppposed to be suboptimal choices. I disagree, they're simple because they require very little training to use. Crossbows, and spears are both listed as simple weapons but are not suboptimal weapons.
FeceMan 03-27-07, 03:17 PM	Rogues rely on sneak attack, not weapon damage.
The White Sorcerer 03-27-07, 03:23 PM	First of all, let me point out that having personally fought with daggers, they are not at all easy to conceal. It wouldn't be the first time a weapon differs between D&D and real life.
snakeman830 03-27-07, 04:28 PM	It wouldn't be the first time a weapon differs between D&D and real life. The daggers I've seen that were MADE for steel-on-steel combat had blades that were about four to five inches long. That seems pretty easy to conceal, especially in loose clothing. an offshoot on the concealed weapon part: did anyone else know that, in Monatana, it is illeagal to carry a concealed weapon of over six feet in length? Daggers may not return to you, but a Returning dagger sure will. Get three returning daggers and the quick draw feat (plus another couple daggers for the time between your turns) and you have a ranged full attack every round. Think of an exit wound (CW) dagger. Or better yet (if you have the money) the greatly feared Vopral Dagger! (I 've often wondered how a little dagger can actually cut the tarrasque's head off). I know, I'm going on about the various special qualities, but the fact that you can have a dozen daggers on your person at the same cost as two shortswords will mean foes that like to disarm you will constanly be annoyed at you. It's well worth the difference.
Dragonteuthis 03-27-07, 05:39 PM	Yes, but if you feint an opponent, he's flat-footed until his next turn, so you can make a full attack against that opponent and sneak attack with every attack. You really need to re-read the rules on feinting in combat. Please.
DarkRhystar 03-27-07, 06:15 PM	Yes, but if you feint an opponent, he's flat-footed until his next turn, so you can make a full attack against that opponent and sneak attack with every attack. (Which is different than sneak attacking from hiding, you only get SA on your first attack then) You really need to re-read the rules on feinting in combat. Please. Just to add on to what Dragonteuthis has said, I'll quote the rules: FEINT Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff check opposed by a Sense Motive check by your target. The target may add his base attack bonus to this Sense Motive check. If your Bluff check result exceeds your target’s Sense Motive check result, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn. When feinting in this way against a nonhumanoid you take a –4 penalty. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2), you take a –8 penalty. Against a nonintelligent creature, it’s impossible. Feinting in combat does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Feinting as a Move Action: With the Improved Feint feat, you can attempt a feint as a move action instead of as a standard action.
FntsyWlkr 03-27-07, 07:26 PM	HUGE SELLING POINTS: 1) they are a melee weapon 2) they can be used in a grapple 3) they can be thrown 4) generally DM's will allow you to use it as a utility tool (cut rope, skin animals...)
Tonio 03-27-07, 07:29 PM	Well, first off, I'd like to state that my intention with starting this thread was NOT to disparage daggers (or their wielders) in any way. On the contrary, I was looking to be convinced of their worth. Second, I have been convinced, thoroughly. Sure, daggers are still not the best primary weapon choice for a brute-type character (high strength, low dex/int, etc.), but they're much better than I used to think. And they're definitely one of the best choices (at worst) for a rogue or anybody with a fast-growing damage add (like sneak attack). On a perhaps related note... why can't, for example, longswords deal piercing damage? Or shortswords deal slashing? I understand they're not built with that intent, but it seems very unrealistic to think I can't pierce someone with the point of my longsword, or slash with the edge of my shortsword, even if taking a hit to my attack bonus, and/or reducing the damage done. Their damage types seem to indicate a blunt-tipped longsword, and a shortsword that's more a pointed stick (mini-spear?) than a short sword.
Thubby 03-27-07, 07:52 PM	reasons for a dagger as a primary weapon: some classes are dependant on them, aka invisible blade. they are easy to hide they are by far teh highest grade simple weapon around, as was already mentioned they are all around versetile. improvised mirror/wedge/lock pick of sorts/and many more. its scary as hell when your 7ft greatsword wielding buddy just lost to the 5ft nothing dude with the knife. (flavor)
unusualsuspect 03-27-07, 08:47 PM	There's also a great deal of usefulness for daggers in the Tome of Battle. TWFing Daggers with Shadow Blade and the Bloodclaw Master PrC means you're getting your full strength and dexterity bonii to damage with each weapon, both mainhand and offhand. The dagger is the only weapon available that fits the criteria for both the feat and the PrC ability. For a friend's character, with Strength and Dexterity scores of 20 each, this means each of his wee rusty daggers is doing 1d4 +10 damage... nothing to sneeze at.
Garble Willowwits 03-27-07, 09:15 PM	Vaguely on topic here, does "Weapon Focus: Dagger" work with punching daggers? Since the punching dagger itself is almost never mentioned for anything, I would assume that it counts as a "dagger" for all intents and purposes. I'm curious because the character I'm planning will be using a PunchingDagger as his main weapon, but he carries a number of regular daggers as well. Also, on the usefulness of throwing daggers, anyone remember the crazy boss guy from Time Crisis 2? I can't remember his name, but he was a dagger fiend with style.
DarkRhystar 03-27-07, 09:35 PM	On a perhaps related note... why can't, for example, longswords deal piercing damage? Or shortswords deal slashing? I understand they're not built with that intent, but it seems very unrealistic to think I can't pierce someone with the point of my longsword, or slash with the edge of my shortsword, even if taking a hit to my attack bonus, and/or reducing the damage done. Their damage types seem to indicate a blunt-tipped longsword, and a shortsword that's more a pointed stick (mini-spear?) than a short sword. Bingo. That's the "realistic" reason; not that I think that holds much water. The more likely reason is that weapons that can deal different damage types have an advantage over weapons that can't and the designers may have felt that giving them that advantage would have been unfair to other weapons in the proficiency category.
Thubby 03-27-07, 10:00 PM	On a perhaps related note... why can't, for example, longswords deal piercing damage? Or shortswords deal slashing? I understand they're not built with that intent, but it seems very unrealistic to think I can't pierce someone with the point of my longsword, or slash with the edge of my shortsword, even if taking a hit to my attack bonus, and/or reducing the damage done. Their damage types seem to indicate a blunt-tipped longsword, and a shortsword that's more a pointed stick (mini-spear?) than a short sword. if you stabbed someone in armor with a Lsword, you had a pretty good chance of snapping it. shortswords (the ones in dnd seemed to be modeled after the spanish, popularized by the romans) simply werent weighted properly to cut people, nor were they sharpened that way. they didnt have enough cutting area.
Tonio 03-27-07, 10:12 PM	[...] you're getting your full strength and dexterity bonii [...] Grossly offtopic, and a major nitpick... "bonii" is incorrect. "Bonuses" is the correct plural. Even in latin "bonii" would not be the correct plural. :P Vaguely on topic here, does "Weapon Focus: Dagger" work with punching daggers? Since the punching dagger itself is almost never mentioned for anything, I would assume that it counts as a "dagger" for all intents and purposes. I'm curious because the character I'm planning will be using a PunchingDagger as his main weapon, but he carries a number of regular daggers as well. I would say it doesn't work. Punching daggers are a completely different weapon, they're only similar in name and size (and, well, the fact that they both have bladed edges, heh). Punching daggers are more similar to spiked gauntlets than to daggers.
The White Sorcerer 03-28-07, 12:06 PM	Grossly offtopic, and a major nitpick... "bonii" is incorrect. "Bonuses" is the correct plural. Even in latin "bonii" would not be the correct plural. :P So what, "bonii" sounds more archaic than "bonuses."
trapspringer 03-28-07, 12:39 PM	if you stabbed someone in armor with a Lsword, you had a pretty good chance of snapping it. shortswords (the ones in dnd seemed to be modeled after the spanish, popularized by the romans) simply werent weighted properly to cut people, nor were they sharpened that way. they didnt have enough cutting area. Yeppers. The short sword in D&D covers a lot fo stuff pretty well. The rapier evolved into a short sword as people got less serious about duelling 'cuz it was easier to carry. It's essentially a rapier of simple design. The D&D short sword is also a good representation of the gladius, but I expect if they could've got 'em to hold an edge they would have. At any rate, it is immaterial to our discussion here. The reality is damage type in D&D is a balancing factor (although probably the least significant with regards to weapon balance).
kelvinaw273 03-28-07, 02:10 PM	The gladius was short and to the point, designed foir thrusting rather than slashing, although it could be used that way. Weapons in the size of the longsword could be slashing weapons, piercing weapons or both, depending on the culture. The medieval arming sword was used to both thrust and strike, the thrust being reserved for armoured oponants and/or close quarters. When you are fighting shoulder to shoulder it is easier to thrust than to swing; when facing armour the narrow piont is more likely to pierce chain mail or find a chink in heavier armour. Against a less well armoured oponant, a swung blow from a long sword would cut a man down easily, and could injure a man even through armour.
trapspringer 03-28-07, 05:51 PM	Weapons in the size of the longsword could be slashing weapons, piercing weapons or both, depending on the culture. As I understand it, a popular tactic for the Europeon crowd was to break something (like a knee or collar bone) with a big swing and follow that up with a thurst once the target was down. Obviously the Japs had a differnt approach, but we really, really don't need to turn this into an uber-katana thread.
Garble Willowwits 03-28-07, 06:29 PM	As I understand it, a popular tactic for the Europeon crowd was to break something (like a knee or collar bone) with a big swing and follow that up with a thurst once the target was down. Obviously the Japs had a differnt approach, but we really, really don't need to turn this into an uber-katana thread. I'll second the warning there. On another warning note, at least where I'm from, 'Japs' is a rather derrogatory term. Besides, I think we're getting off topic here. This isn't a "History of Short Pointy Things", it's a discussion on how daggers can be useful.
Tonio 03-28-07, 06:49 PM	Edited out... had commented on "Japs" as a derogatory term, but thought better of it, in the interest of keeping the already-derailing thread somewhat more on-topic. =/
Stormbrand 03-28-07, 07:10 PM	Umm if you read in the Arms & Equipment Guide it says an equivelent of daggers is a sken dubh(cant spell my own words), and those are like 2 inch blades. If a dagger is only 2 or 3 inches, it would be pretty easy to conceal. Never read that guide, but every combat dagger I have known had at least a nine-inch blade, plus the length of the grip to hold it with. Then again, someone else said it best... It wouldn't be the first time a weapon differs between D&D and real life. For example, D&D does not realise that a bastard sword is smaller than a longsword. On a perhaps related note... why can't, for example, longswords deal piercing damage? Or shortswords deal slashing? I understand they're not built with that intent, but it seems very unrealistic to think I can't pierce someone with the point of my longsword, or slash with the edge of my shortsword, even if taking a hit to my attack bonus, and/or reducing the damage done. Their damage types seem to indicate a blunt-tipped longsword, and a shortsword that's more a pointed stick (mini-spear?) than a short sword. More of it is to do with the weight and handling. Longswords tend to build up more power with a swing, short swords gain more power from a direct thrust. In short, most effective use. Interestingly, however, long sword and up had a two-handed style called half-sword - which involved gripping the blade and thrusting like a close-work spear. This built up very accurate and strong thrusts. In fact , due to this style, the greatsword was mostly a stabbing weapon.
PhaedrusXY 03-28-07, 07:22 PM	Regarding the damage... the shortsword does 50% more damage than the dagger. It does an average of 1 point more damage. 50% is very misleading, as pretty much everyone will be getting a bunch of bonus damage from something (sneak attack, strength, elemental damage, etc). Given the already listed advantages of the dagger, it is easy to why someone might choose to use one, instead of a shortsword, given that they're only losing one point of damage.
Tonio 03-28-07, 07:23 PM	Never read that guide, but every combat dagger I have known had at least a nine-inch blade, plus the length of the grip to hold it with. Then again, someone else said it best... For example, D&D does not realise that a bastard sword is smaller than a longsword. More of it is to do with the weight and handling. Longswords tend to build up more power with a swing, short swords gain more power from a direct thrust. In short, most effective use. Interestingly, however, long sword and up had a two-handed style called half-sword - which involved gripping the blade and thrusting like a close-work spear. This built up very accurate and strong thrusts. In fact , due to this style, the greatsword was mostly a stabbing weapon. According to wikipedia, bastard swords (and greatswords) all refer to longswords in general (i.e. they're the same weapon). Additionally, longswords WERE designed to thrust as much as cut. In fact, latter longswords were design to thrust more than to cut, to work better against armored opponents. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword)
Tonio 03-28-07, 07:26 PM	It does an average of 1 point more damage. 50% is very misleading, as pretty much everyone will be getting a bunch of bonus damage from something (sneak attack, strength, elemental damage, etc). Given the already listed advantages of the dagger, it is easy to why someone might choose to use one, instead of a shortsword, given that they're only losing one point of damage. Yeah, I've since come to realize this. About the only people who would be seeing a literal 50% more damage are people who can either not wield a shortsword efficiently, or wouldn't be meleeing to begin with. I'm used to playing either casters or big bad brutes, so I was working from math rather than experience, unfortunately.
Kadrimdorian_Mage 03-28-07, 11:02 PM	So we are all agreed that the Dagger is the greatest weapon ever? By the the way, for that longsword comment a few posts ago. The longswords today are still used for stabbing, but a different kind of stabbing. Longswords, or some of them anyway, are spring loaded in the hilt so that they flop up and down about two inches. This makes it an amazing stabbing weapon because it slides right through your enemie's ribcage, and around the ribs. However, if they are wearing any armor at all, the longsword will snap if stabbed with, so only stab your opponent if they have no armor. If you are wearing armor, slashing is all you can do.
Holy_Beholder 03-28-07, 11:36 PM	I am all for daggers, but some of the bonuses cancel each other out. For instance over looked by guards, is a great bonus. So is being able to keep a large stash of daggers. However a sheaf of daggers isn't going to be ignored by guards. And also, with other weapons give away character types, give me a break. Quarterstaff, I have had a monk, fighter, sorcerer, wizard, and druid with one. Similarly, maces are used by clerics, fighters, barbarians, sorcerers, and wizards. As for simple weapons being sub optimal, other than the dagger they are. Take the short spear. 2 hands to use, does equal damage to a light weapon(short sword) A 2 handed sword is 2d6, spear 1d6. Clearly these guys hated spears. I have done foam fighting, and daggers are so incredibly fun. For instance, they allow you to be light, and when I was a kid, fighting on the trampoline, it wouldn't get stuck on nets. Plus you could jump over a sword aimed at mid chest, and stab a dagger into somebody. And in 3+ people battles, that dagger throw is deadly. However, I have also determined that spears and staves are far more deadly than in most games. But daggers win, because of versatility. The only real problem is the dagger throw vs. large shield, but since shields are laughably under powered in D&D no problem.
rdbard717 03-29-07, 12:51 AM	side note: its alittle hard to conceal anything over 6 feet long...anywhere as for the Prcs master thrower and invisible blade are tremendously good classes to take when using daggers
tharivol266 03-29-07, 12:54 AM	side note: its alittle hard to conceal anything over 6 feet long...anywhere i can hide a rocket launcher in my pants (not a sexual innuendo or joke in anyway) cookie to the first to get the reference
Thubby 03-29-07, 01:17 AM	i can hide a rocket launcher in my pants (not a sexual innuendo or joke in anyway) cookie to the first to get the reference OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH! resident evil! THUBBY WANT HIS COOKIE! :tantrum: EDIT: i gots me a cookie :dancin: :cookie:
Nathreet 03-29-07, 03:03 AM	Daggers give you many, many options, as pointed out in this thread. All in exchange for ~1.5 average damage (including crit effects, etc., at mid to high levels). Oh no, 1.5 damage! Daggers suxxorz! :eek:. So yeah, there are plenty of mechanical reasons to go dagger. But if you never use those special tactics, you might as well go rapier for the extra 1 to ~1.5 damage.
Ack 03-29-07, 04:33 AM	One reason I think everyone has missed .. in medieval societies, forks weren't invented until late in the piece. So daggers were used to pick up your food and convey it to your mouth (carefully...). So a dagger was an essential eating tool; a man wearing one wasn't lethally armed, he was equipped for dining out :D
Sajek 03-29-07, 12:41 PM	Daggers have all kind of uses other than that of killing. They can be used as tent posts, screwdrivers, hairpins, hatpins, silverwear, whittling, even sewing needles (for giants).
Heros_Backpack 03-29-07, 02:35 PM	However a sheaf of daggers isn't going to be ignored by guards. Oh, I don't know. I once had a character who carried a dozen daggers, and frequently walked them past guards. (He had 2 in each boot, one strapped to each thigh, one up each sleeve, 2 tucked inside his coat, one hanging down the back of his neck and the last one in full view on his belt.)
tharivol266 03-29-07, 03:02 PM	OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH! resident evil! THUBBY WANT HIS COOKIE! :tantrum: :cookie:
snakeman830 03-29-07, 03:35 PM	side note: its alittle hard to conceal anything over 6 feet long...anywhere Yes, it is. But you have to realise that the only reason that this is a law is that someone managed to do it. (Who knows how)
Dragonteuthis 03-29-07, 05:42 PM	Yes, it is. But you have to realise that the only reason that this is a law is that someone managed to do it. (Who knows how) Not necessarily. If a lawmaker gets a law passed, it gets added to his portfolio, so he gets an extra statistic with which to swing weight around ("I've successfully had four laws passed! I'm legitimate!") There are of course plenty of examples, but some of my favorites are: It's illegal to speak English in a particular state, I forget which one. (They call the language there "American"). In Pittsburgh it's illegal to towel dry dishes (they must be drip-dried). In Philadephia, it is illegal to sweep dirt under the rug. In Kansas it is illegal to shoot a whale. Because...you know...someone must have toweled off a dish in Pittsburgh. So they had to pass that law.
Stormbrand 03-29-07, 06:15 PM	According to wikipedia, bastard swords (and greatswords) all refer to longswords in general (i.e. they're the same weapon). Additionally, longswords WERE designed to thrust as much as cut. In fact, latter longswords were design to thrust more than to cut, to work better against armored opponents. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword) Agreed. Longsword itself is a fairly broad catagory. Bastard swords have hand-and-a-half grips, allowing less extra leverage. Most longswords have a grip of 2-3 handspans, allowing greater control and leverage. Blade length was identical (so yes, bastard sword is smaller :P ). Evolution of the sword was towards thrusting, but the handling of bastard swords at least favours the swing, since it requires less control for such a large one-handed weapon. Most stabbing techniques work far better two-handed.
Far_Traveler 03-29-07, 09:13 PM	Why, apart from roleplaying reasons, why anybody ever pick daggers as their main weapon? Or even offhand? Easy to conceal? Would that be the only reason? I ask simply because I've always wanted to make a dual dagger wielding rogue, but always end up picking shortswords or rapiers in order to deal more damage. (Wrong forum for this?) Easy. Your not supposed to use it as a main or off-hand weapon. It's a secondary weapon, unsless your concept is a daggerthrower, a case that is actually a pretty good one, you simply do not use it as a main weapon.
Sorcen_Anenooata 03-29-07, 10:41 PM	First of all, thanks for the ideas with the returning vorpal daggers and where to put my dozen daggers on a new character for my arena. Secondly, I too have fought with daggers and they arent so hard to conceal as they are to block with. And to throw them you have to be very skilled at it. I have been trying to learn the art of throwing them for years and it is quite the hard task, possibly the hardest thing I have ever decided to learn. I now have my daggers picked out and these two suit me well enough to fight against my brother and his great sword, the primary hand's dagger is a kriss style blade but with a finger loop to twirl my weapon just because I like doing that and my off-hand's dagger is similar to the curved claw-like dagger knife that Riddick wielded in the movie Pitch Black. In short, daggers are great weapons.